vicarious liability Flashcards
who are the 3 people involved in the case
claimant
defendant
tortfeaser
who is the claimant
who suffered as a result of the tort
who is the defendant
did not commit the tort but is responsible
who is the tort feaser
person who committed the tort
what happened in the christian brothers case
concerned the responsibility of a school management trust for criminal actions involving physical and sexual abuse of children in a children’s home by a visiting priest.
The school were held to share responsibility.
what are the 5 reasons viarious liability exists
An employer is more likely to have the financial capability to compensate C (things like insurance)
The tort will have been committed in the course of employment
Therefore the activity is likely to be for the benefit of the employer
The employment created the risk of the tort by employing the person in the first place
The employee is under the control of the employer (at least to some extent)
what are the two types of torts
unintentional tort (such as negligence)
intentional tort
what are the 5 intentional torts
battery
sexual assault
intentional interference with economic interests/stealing- trying benefit from harming someone’s business
Harassment- making the victim feel distressed, humiliated, threatened or fearful of further violence over time
Misuse of private information and breach of confidence- sue for damages where private information has been disclosed without their consent.
what case gives us the 2 main requirements for vicarious liability
Jehovah’s Witnesses v BXB (2023)
what are the main requirements for vicarious liability
Relationship between D and TF which makes it proper for the law to make D pay for the fault of TF
a connection between that relationship and the Tfs wrongdoing
for the first requirement (Relationship between D and TF which makes it proper for the law to make D pay for the fault of TF) what are the 2 ways this can be established
TF is an employee of D
TF is in a relationship ‘akin to employment’
what are the 3 tests needed for TF is an employee of D
Control Test
Organization/Integration Test
Economic Reality Test
whats the control test
Who has the right to control actions of the tortfeasor (T)
what are 2 cases for this
Yewen v Noakes
Mersey Docks v Coggins and Griffith
organization/integration test meaning
Difference between a contract of service (liable) and a contract for services (independent contractor – not liable)
what is the case for this
Stephenson, Jordan and Harrison v MacDonald and Evans
(sjh v macdonald and evans)
economic reality test meaning
look at the money to see the reality
what are the 3 cases for this
ready mixed concrete
viasystems
barclays
yewen v noakes meaning
does master have right to control servant
mersey docks v coggins and griffith meaning
for temp workers, general employer remains liable unless can show liability has passed on
Stephenson, Jordan and Harrison v MacDonald and Evans meaning
T is an employee if work is integral to the business
Ready Mixed Concrete meaning
checklist of conventional employer/employee relations (wages, control, sick pay, holiday etc)
viasystems meaning
two employers could share responsibility
barclays meaning
there is no liability for someone who is a truly independent contractor
5 cases for akin to employment
Cox v Ministry of Justice
Christian Brothers
Cox
Armes
Barry
Cox v Ministry of Justice meaning (3 points)
liability outside of traditional employment if:
- T is doing an activity on behalf of D
- Activity is likely to be part of D’s business
- D created risk of tort by asking T to carry out the activity
Christian brothers
can also use these 5 reasons to justify imposing liability (listed above)
Cox
prisoners working in prison kitchens
Armes
foster parents
Barry
elder in church community
A connection between that relationship and TF’s wrongdoing-
whats the question to ask for unintentional torts
Were TF’s actions in the course of employment?
what acts ARE in the course of employment
Authorized acts
Acts close to job description
Doing what employed to do but in unauthorized way
Doing what employed to do in careless way
Employer benefits from the tort
what acts AREN’T in the course of employment
Employee on a frolic of his own
Unauthorized acts with no benefit to employer
Authorized acts case
(Poland v Parr)
Acts close to job description
(London v Cattermoles)
Doing what employed to do but in unauthorized way case
(Limpus)
Doing what employed to do in careless way
(Century Insurance)
Employer benefits from the tort
(Rose v Plenty)
Employee on a frolic of his own
(Hilton v Thomas Burton)
Unauthorised acts with no benefit to employer
(Twine v Beans)
what test is used for intentional tort
close connections test
whats the case for this
Lister v Hesley Hall
what cases show what this includes
Mohamud v Morrisons
Armes
Barry
Maga
Mattis
what 2 questions does this ask
- What field of activities has been entrusted to TF
- Is there a close connection between that field of activities and T’s actions
If yes = D is liable
whats included in Mohamud v Morrisons
included racially motivated assault on a customer
whats included in Armes
included foster parents abusing foster children
whats not included as apart of Barry
did not include sexual abuse of congregation member as there was no link to her going back to his house and his position in the church
what included in Mattis
included bouncer stabbing a customer
whats included in Maga
included sexual abuse by priests in Catholic church
